Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?

[Garland Bayley]

I think the issue Kirk was trying to bring up is one of exclusion.

When having a cart-only course, which for the record I don't agree with, no one is excluded.  Sure it may not be your preference to ride, but you aren't excluded from still playing the course if you wish.

The opposite is however true for walking-only courses.  For those who can't walk 18 holes and be on thier feet 4 hours straight, for whatever the reason, they are being excluded from playing that course.

This is the issue, exclusion vs non-exclusion....

No it's not Kalen! Chambers Bay and Bandon Resort allow carts when necessary. If someone excludes themselves from playing, because they want a cart that is just like me excluding myself because I don't want one.

The USGA says "The only justifiable utility of carts is that they allow people to play golf who otherwise would not be able to play because of a physical condition. These golfers are not the problem. They are a negligible minority of cart users. The problem is caused by the gross number of healthy people transporting themselves around golf courses in carts. Properlty operated golf courses require a request from a doctor to allow a player to use a cart." (emphasis added) 1995, USGA

[Rob Rigg]

Kalen,

I do not think that any of the avid walkers on this thread would disagree that there should be carts allowed for those who need them.

The fact is that many many courses have been built over the past two decades that are essentially unwalkable, whether they are carts only or not.

In creating a Walking Only (with exceptions for those who cannot) course, the architect and developer are making a point that they support the game as it was intended to be played even if they lose business because some people only play "cart golf".

How is a course being exclusive if they are asking 99% of the golfing population to do something that they do on a daily basis - ie) walk - while providing carts for the other 1% who need them?

[Kirk Gill]

Being excluded doesn't really bother me. I'm used to it. Just don't call me a nasty name when you do it.

[SL_Solow]

Those who know me understand that I walk whenever permitted except when I am trying to sneak in a fast twilight 9 at my home course.  My club has an active caddy program which I support.

Having said that, if a club wants to allow carts, that is their choice.  Just as I oppose mandatory cart policies, I tend to oppose mandatory walking absent some overriding agronomic issue,  However, owners including private club memberships, can make their own rules and let the marketplace decide whether they are successful.  I understand the frustration of being unable to ride at Bandon for those who are used to it (Ifavor medical exceptions) but David Moriarty has it right; the Bandon experience would be fundamentally changed by the introduction of carts.  I wouldn't change a thing and management shouldn't have to.

As to cart paths, some architects like Fazio, have become adept at hiding them.  this adds to construction costs but improves aesthetics immeasurably.  Continuous paths are the worst; paths near tees and greens can help reduce compaction and assist superintendents.

My biggest problem is the impact on architecture.  I recognize that carts may allow construction of courses on severe unwalkable sights.  Some might suggest that such sights should not have golf courses, I am not quite so doctrinaire.  But even worse is their encouragement of the housing development type courses, the type where you leave the 2nd green and drive 3 blocks, cross a street and then follow a path between 2 condos to get to the third tee.  These allow a lot of fairway views but the courses have zero flow and are unwalkable.  They also take forever to play.  Given the slump in the housing market we may see them disappear.  If so, it will be one of the few good results fom the downturn.

Finally, those of you who dismiss Pat's arguments regarding caddies should not be so quick.  In areas where there is a culture favoring caddies, clubs can take steps to maintain programs even while allowing cart usage.  The Chicago area is full of private clubs and some public facilities with healthy programs.  The traditional support of the WGA's Evans Scholar program helps maintain the culture.  An attempt to maintain reasonable fees that attract the kids but don't break the bank also helps.  I favor a mandatory program but my club won't go that far and we still have a full complement of caddies  in season.  The golf is more pleasant, the club becomes better connected with the community, kids have a chance to earn some honest money while being introduced to golf and some of them make contacts that are useful in later life.  Everybody wins and if you get a caddy who isn't that well trained, you can view it as an opportunity to introduce someone to the nuances of this great game.  Some of those youngsters grow to be top caddies and even future club members.  But of course all of us came to this game (or school or our jobs) fully mature without the need for help from an understanding adult.  So let those kids learn on their own or get out of our way.  Oops a little too aggressive but you might get my point.  End of polemic.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shelly - as usual, a thoughtful post. Thanks. But you make one point in particular (one I've read here several times before) that I'm not sure I agree with, i.e. the connection between increased cart use and the proliferation of housing development courses. Like the argument that sky-high design fees lead to expensive green fees, I think it puts the cart before the horse.  In the latter case, I think developers who aspire towards a top-end daily fee or resort course begin with a number/green fee in their heads, and then hire a designer whose name and price-point justifies that number (at least in the developer's mind).  In the former case, I think developers have their housing plans in place (and the housing-green space equation established) before they decide to fill that green-space with a golf course instead of, say, semi-forested walking trails.  The fact that they know carts will be used (and will essentially be mandatory, in fact) doesn't lead, a priori, to any specific kind of golf course; instead, it helps makes the case, a posteriori, for building any golf course at all (instead of, say, leaving semi-forested walking trails).  I could be wrong about all of this; but I'm just not sure that your argument is right either.

Peter

[SL_Solow]

Peter;  Thanks for the compliment.  I can't say for sure that I am right but I have talked to several developers who confirmed my hypothesis.  You are correct in that most of these cases create the green space as an afterthought; the best positioning/routing for the golf course is not a major factor in the land plan.  But so long as golf course views are perceived as enhancing the value of each lot, then a land plan/routing which maximizes the number of views yields dollars.  All that is necessary is finding an architect who is willing to fit the course into the corridors selected.  Carts make this possible because it allows the player to access remote tees from greens.  If we are ever in Florida at the same time I'll show you a few and contrast them to developments with "core" golf courses.  I can even show you one in the Chicago area.

[Chris Cupit]

I'd love for the walking/cart policy to be one that gave the consumer as many choices as possible.  The game is seeing a decline in golfers and rounds played.  We need policies that make the game more enjoyable, more accessible, less time consuming and more inexpensive.

Pat,

I screwed up and only counted private clubs.  I'm sure your 403 number is correct.

[Garland Bayley]

Shel,

You pointed out how well Fazio hides cart paths, but you didn't point out that some great holes wouldn't exist if you had to hide a cart path.
Tom Doak has pointed out this about Pac Dunes. 10 and 12 at Chambers Bay couldn't be done with a hidden cart path. Etc.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shelly -

for some reason, I can more easily agree with your second post than I can with the section I referenced from your first. Maybe I'm fnding (or making) a distinction without any difference. But at any rate, I think the more fundamental question is whether it's better to have a bad golf course than no golf course at all.  If we're talking about the future of great golf course architecture, I think the answer is probably 'no'; but if we're talking about the future of the game of golf itself, I think the answer may be 'yes'.  (Although, the one or two housing courses I've played don't seem to get all that much play from the home-owners themselves; maybe in a few years their children will take up the game and play the course instead of heading to the shoping mall, at least once in a while).

Peter

[JMEvensky]

 But at any rate, I think the more fundamental question is whether it's better to have a bad golf course than no golf course at all.  If we're talking about the future of great golf course architecture, I think the answer is probably 'no'; but if we're talking about the future of the game of golf itself, I think the answer may be 'yes'. 

Peter

That's really good and something I've thought about.The problem that I always come back to is that,if development-type courses become people's introduction to the game,what game are we really growing?

[Rob Rigg]

I have been contacted by several people, who are not members of GCA but have been reading the thread, about the opinions they are seeing from avid walkers on GCA.com.

I was also BCC'd on an email by someone who was ordering a golf cart - that was really funny and pretty much made my day, thanks for that.

Not sure if all of the avid walkers would agree, but I would like to clarify my stance for anyone else out there who has been reading the thread and is "hurt" by any comments that have been made.

JIMO

1) If someone cannot walk due to medical or health reasons - read REAL reasons as opposed to I want to drink 20 beers or am lazy - then I fully support their ability to play a golf course via use of a cart - whether that course is Walking Only, Walking Friendly or Barely Walkable.

2) When I use the term "cart golf" and "cart golfer" I am referring to a course that only provides an option for "cart golf" or a golfer who chooses to take a cart instead of walking, and is thus a "cart golfer" by choice. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a cart golfer, but if you choose to take a cart on a walkable course then you are choosing to play "cart golf" instead of "golf".

3) People can play the game as they see fit, but the outcome of a rise in "cart golfers", is that in large numbers, they clearly have shown the ability to change golf course design, construction, etc. for the worse, because by playing "cart golf" developers, architects, etc. have determined that "cart golf" is something that a large number of consumers want and are willing to pay for, which has resulted in many unwalkable courses or architecturally devoid courses with paths scarring their landscape.

Golf courses that are "walkable" provide an option for a golfer to choose whether they want to walk or take a cart. The advent of "cart golf" courses have taken the choice out of a golfer's hands, in terms of how they can play. If you look at the Walkability Ratings, in certain states there is a very large number of Orange to Gray courses and very few Green or Yellow courses.

That is frightening, because golf is a walking game and golfers should have the option to play the game as intended, especially if the site in question could have provided a walkable golf course as opposed to a cart golf course.

On certain sites, there are no real options and the only way to construct a course is to make it "cart golf". I understand that if a developer wants a course on a tough site then an architect will build one, and it will be cart golf, and it makes sense.

But on many "cart golf" sites, a walkable course could have been created, regardless of whether it has elevation change, RE development aspect, etc. By creating a "cart golf" course, the architect, developer, etc. are supporting a type of golf where the experience and fitness benefits are being diluted. While that is obviously their choice, it is not something that I support as a walking golfer.

Do I support Walking Only courses, that allow carts for those who cannot walk for medical or health reasons, absolutely. Not only because they are rare in America, but because Golf is a walking game and that is how people should be encouraged to play/experience the game in order to avail of its many benefits.

In the future, I hope that developers and architects work together to build courses that are walkable at a minimum so we get people out of their carts and onto their feet exercising and playing the game as intended by its founders.

I also hope that Walking Only courses will welcome the small percentage of the population who cannot walk for medical or health reasons by providing carts. The dedication and commitment to the game that amputees, those with chronic pain, injuries, etc. show whenever they are out on the course is inspiring.

[SL_Solow]

Bayley;  Your point is well taken. As a rule I detest continuous paths.  I prefer none at all but tolerate limited pads to prevent compaction.  My only point is that if paths are "required" they can be done pretty well.

[Adam Clayman]

The number one thing you can do for brain health?

http://www.livescience.com/health/090423-sharp-mind-1.html

Explains the Sarazen, and others, longevity.

[Garland Bayley]

The number one thing you can do for brain health?

http://www.livescience.com/health/090423-sharp-mind-1.html

Explains the Sarazen, and others, longevity.

I can't cite the source, but engaging in new physical skill learning is reported to be great for brain health too. So now is the time to take up curling!

[Lou_Duran]

Rob,

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing twice with Moriarty on the same day.  There are certainly enough courses for riders to enjoy that the very few which restrict it to a great extent shouldn't be criticized for it.

As one who allowed mandatory riding to end what little competitive golf success I enjoyed, I am particularly sensitive to any movement which seeks to impose its preferences on others.  At my club of over 20 years I became somewhat of a pariah for refusing to play in tournaments and with my friends when carts were required, and considered by some as somewhat deranged when I walked in 100* degree heat in the middle of the summer afternoons (even my wife thought I was nuts).  Needless to say, my purist if not just stubborn stance did nothing to benefit me or my game.

As a walker I would much prefer that other golfers come to see the game our way through example as opposed to our insistence or ravings that somehow, if they ride, they play something other than golf.  Just like the president is having a hard time convincing people that covering some 50 million more Americans and improving benefits will result in lowering healthcare costs, insisting that carts aren't profitable and that they slow down the game is not the way to gain converts.  Neither is the position that some seem to take that a course which is not easily walkable is a course that should not exist.

So long as the economics of the cart fleet make sense for the operators to offer them, carts will be around.  Personally, I think walkers need to address the speed of play- far too many in places like SoCal play at a very leisurely pace of five and six hours pulling their umbrellaed high-tech carts- and fixing divots issues before we make too many demands on others.  It hurts me to say that I've played with more than a couple of GCAers who could do better in leading by example.

[Garland Bayley]

...
our ravings that somehow, if they ride, they play something other than golf....

These are not "our ravings" as you say. But, instead it is the position of the USGA on the matter. Those who insist on carts for the healthy are raving and in opposition to the ruling body of golf. However, they benefit from being the most vocal, which does not make them right.

[Bill_McBride]

There is no question in my mind that walking golf is the best golf. However riding golf is better than no golf. I am glad people who for whatever reason cannot walk still desire the game. I do not see the wisdom of rules like walking only. I also do not like clubs who make you pay to walk or prohibit trollies to offset loss of cart revenue

Plus burly Southern boys like you and me would not get much golf played in the summer! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bayley;  Your point is well taken. As a rule I detest continuous paths.  I prefer none at all but tolerate limited pads to prevent compaction.  My only point is that if paths are "required" they can be done pretty well.

SL_Solow,

I've seen them done very well, but, a good deal of thought must be devoted to a functional and aesthetic routing.
Some courses have the land and the routing that allows them to be unintrusive, other courses aren't as fortunate.

With respect to "real" medical excuses, if someone has  cold, sore throat, the flu, muscle pull or a hangover, should they be forced to walk ?

[Garland Bayley]

...
With respect to "real" medical excuses, if someone has  cold, sore throat, the flu, muscle pull or a hangover, should they be forced to walk ?

Of course they should. If you always walk you walk under those conditions, so what's wrong with reformed cart-ballers walking under those conditions.